To protect the property of the one, it became necessary to violate the property of the other.

The most remarkable feature of this business was precisely that to which the least attention was paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property had to be violated.

Did they impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market?
They created a maximum PRICE for each variety of sugar; and, as this maximum PRICE was not the same, they attacked property in two ways,--on the one hand, interfering with the liberty of trade; on the other, disregarding the equality of proprietors.

Did they suppress the beet-root by granting an indemnity to the manufacturer?
They sacrificed the property of the tax-payer.

Finally, did they prefer to cultivate the two varieties of sugar at the nation's expense, just as different varieties of tobacco are cultivated?
They abolished, so far as the sugar industry was concerned, the right of property.